Present: M. Bolger (R. Koda's proxy), A. Crigler, G. Davis, W. Dehning, W. Dutton, F. Feldman, J. Gates, T. Habinek, V. Henderson, A. Hendrick, P. Heseltine, M. Kann, H. Kaslow, D. Kempler, M. Kinder, B. Knight, B. Kosko, J. Kunc, R. Labaree (M. Schuetze-Coburn's proxy), L. Laine, S. Lund, N. Lutkehaus, A. Mircheff, J. Morse, J. Nyquist, W. Petak, N. Petasis, G. Salem, G. Schierle, H. Schor, N. Stromquist, W. Thalmann, W. Tierney, M. Weinstein.

Absent: M. Dudziak, C. Julienne, T. Levi, J. Manegold, M. Mazon, P. Nosco, D. O'Leary, R. Patti, A. Pope, K. Price

Guests: M. Chuang, N. Kanal, M. Levine, H. Slucki, C. Sullivan, J. Zernik.

President William Tierney called the meeting to order at 2:55 p.m.

Agenda Item #1: Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the January 19, 1999 Senate meeting were approved with amendments by Senators Kaslow and Heseltine regarding their own statements.

Agenda Item #2: Announcements

President Tierney made the following announcements:

(a) Open meeting of the Senate: This year’s open meeting of the Senate will be held on April 14, from 1-3:00 p.m. at ASC 204. The topic of the meeting will be Distance/Distributed Learning.

(b) Awards: A Committee has been set-up for the Academic Senate Distinguished Faculty Service Award. It will be chaired by William Dutton, Academic Vice President of the Senate and it will also include Professors Greg Davis and Najwa Hanel. President Tierney encourage the Senators to submit their nomination to this Committee by April 1.

(c) April meeting: The April 2000 Senate meeting will be held at the Health Sciences campus. The meeting will begin at 1:45 pm, one hour earlier than usual since Passoever starts at sunset.

Agenda Item #3: Provost's Comments (Vice Provost M. Levine)

President Tierney said that the Provost was at another meeting and was unable to attend the Senate’s meeting. He then introduced Vice Provost Levine who made some brief remarks regarding interdisciplinary activities. He said that the Provost and many faculty attended a recent meeting on campus regarding Urban Studies. During this meeting it became clear that there are many areas of excellence in this field at USC and a consensus was reached regarding priorities for the future, such as: sustainable healthy cities, urban democracy and new approaches to problem solving. At the meeting, the faculty were asked to provide advice on how to proceed on these issues.

Agenda Item #4: Intellectual Property Policy (Vice Provost C. Sullivan)

President Tierney began the discussion on the new policy on Intellectual Property (IP) by giving a timeline of how this issue evolved during the past year. He said that the Senate Executive Board had a number of discussions on this issue and that Vice Provost Sullivan hopes to finalize this policy by the end of this academic year. Last May, a draft of the pending policy was presented to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Trustees for their comment. During last summer the Provost agreed that the Academic Senate should get involved in this issue.

The pending policy was brought to the Senate last September and it was referred to the Research Committee for their recommendation. Although the Research Committee was scheduled to discuss this policy in December, this discussion had to be postponed until January. Therefore, as of today the Senate does not have the final recommendation of the Research Committee on this issue. Meanwhile, Vice Provost Sullivan met recently with the Executive Board and discussed the current draft. Also, last Friday there was a special open meeting of the Senate to discuss this issue. The Faculty councils were also asked to comment on the current (November 11) draft of the policy. The Engineering faculty and the Medical Faculty Association have provided their written comments on this issue, which were distributed to the senators.

President Tierney also said that he had forwarded the current draft of the policy to a representative of AAUP for their comment. In a response (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/Msmith_AAUP_Comments.htm) from them it was noted that many aspects of the policy are consistent with those at comparable institutions. However, a major difference among the AAUP position and the proposed policy is that ownership of certain intellectual property rests with the faculty instead of the university.

President Tierney then introduced Vice Provost C. Sullivan, who made some additional remarks regarding the history of the pending policy. He said that he began working on the issue of technology transfer in 1997 at the Provost’s suggestion but previous Vice Provosts had worked the issue since the early 1990’s. The latest is the 14^th draft of the proposed policy which was drafted by an ad hoc committee on technology licensing appointed by the Provost and the Senior V. P. for Administration that included personnel who were responsible for administering the tech transfer process. A second Patent Licensing and Technology Transfer (PLTT) advisory committee commissioned by Provost Armstrong and Vice President Dougherty and Chaired by Professor G. Bekey (Engineering) was comprised of eight senior faculty inventors/authors from across the University. This group made their recommendations to inform the draft IP policy and OTL changes after an 18 month study of intellectual property practices at other universities and at USC. The various drafts of the policy were reviewed by the last three Senate Executive Boards, the last three Research Committees and the last three Patent Committees. A considerable number of suggestions were solicited from faculty members. All suggestions were carefully considered, but not all of these suggestions were incorporated into the policy.

Vice Provost Sullivan then highlighted some of the key features of the proposed policy. He said that USC is making major new investments in technology marketing and licensing. There is also an ongoing effort to develop incubators and research parks and draft policy to address these activities. He noted that the proposed policy is consistent with best practices at other comparable universities and that it will only apply to new disclosures after it is signed by the Provost. He expressed the hope that this policy will be completed by the end of the current academic year. At this time he said that he is gathering responses to the November 11 draft and expects that the penultimate version will be prepared by mid March. The Patent Committee, co-chaired by Profs. V. Lee and M. Thompson plan to take the first look of the next draft.

Another senator from the School of Medicine said that although he is not an inventor himself he had canvassed some of his colleagues on this issue, who could not understand why USC likes to extend its ownership of IP rights. He also said that if the current system is not broke, why try to fix it. Rather than try to predetermine how IP is marketed, he suggested that it should be left up to the inventors. He then asked if the technology transfer office works for the inventors or for the university. Vice Provost Sullivan replied both are served; IP is a partnership between the inventor and the University. For example inventors are asked to help identify potential licensees and that other universities have 6-7 times more licensing associates and a greater income from licensing. He then explained that the Office of Technology Licensing was initially set-up to address the university’s obligations according to the Bayh-Dole Act and other IP-related legal issues. He pointed out that USC is trying to help develop an improved culture for IP creation and licensing, as was suggested by some outside consultants from other successful IP programs (Stanford, U. of Wisconsin). He said that USC may be missing an opportunity and an obligation to participate in technology transfer, mentioning that although USC ranks 16th in sponsored research income, it ranks 74th in technology transfer income. He noted that these activities help make contributions to society and also help government agencies meet their goals in terms of investments made in research and technology. According to the Bayh-Dole Act, after expenses are paid, the income from IP created with federal funds has to be spent for research and education purposes, and such funds are also needed to seed more IP activities.

The Secretary General of the Academic Senate, Nicos Petasis, then took the floor and made a number of observations and comments. He first thanked Vice Provost Sullivan for his efforts in taking on this difficult issue and for being open for suggestions by the faculty. Indeed, he said, many faculty made suggestions that were incorporated in the policy. However, he noted that a number of other critical observations and suggestions also made by the faculty were neither incorporated in the policy nor addressed in some way. As a result they keep being brought up by different faculty at different stages of the evolution of the policy. He pointed out that we cannot have an IP policy without faculty support for two important reasons: At first, as a policy that seriously affects faculty rights, responsibilities and rewards, the IP policy is essentially a part of the Faculty Handbook, and therefore it has to be endorsed by the Academic Senate. Second, in order to have a successful IP policy, the faculty must make it work. Indeed, in addition to legalities and right/wrong issues, the IP policy contains several issues that require performance. If the faculty are going to be motivated to engage in these activities they must perceive the IP policy in a positive way. Since the proposed IP policy reduces the IP creators share of IP income, it is not immediately clear how the reduced incentives can increase activities in this area. The only way this can be accomplished, he noted, is by effectively increasing the actual returns to IP creators, despite their reduced share, through a better performance by the Office of Technology Licensing (OTL). Indeed, a smaller percent of a larger total can be much bigger than a greater percent of a smaller total return. For this reason, he expressed strong support for the ongoing changes to the OTL. Mentioning his own recent experience with licensing two inventions at USC, he suggested that an improved and more well-staffed OTL can play a major role in successful licensing. However, he pointed out that IP marketing and licensing is a difficult and unpredictable task and it may be better to introduce some of the changes in IP policy in a gradual manner. He suggested that in order to maintain a high level of incentives, until the improved OTL can demonstrate that it can indeed deliver greater total returns, the royalty share of IP creators should not be disturbed significantly. After all, given the relatively low level of activity in this area, even if these changes are made immediately, they will not result in significant new funds for USC. Also, as the level of IP activities evolve, the royalty distribution can be re-evaluated. In closing, he recommended that in order to help finalize the IP policy so that it can be endorsed by the Senate, a special committee should be appointed by the senate to work with Vice Provost Sullivan on this issue. He suggested that this committee should include some of those that have expressed reservations and disagreements about the policy, so that these differences can be either resolved or presented to the senate for consideration.

The Chair of the Engineering Faculty Council then presented the response of the Engineering faculty (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/EngResponse.htm) to the proposed IP policy (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/POLICYnov11.htm).

In a written response, distributed to the senators, the Engineering faculty made a number of critical comments on the November 11 draft of the policy. He explained that these comments came out of a special meeting of the Engineering faculty council, attended by a number of faculty with experience in this area. He summarized these comments by saying that they were quite negative and that many faculty, including a number of distinguished inventors, are quite unhappy about some of the provisions of the policy. He then suggested that we should table this policy at this time and put together a new committee from the major schools involved in IP activities to consider this issue. Some of the members of this committee should be suggested by these faculty councils and the Provost. He then asked Vice Provost Sullivan if he can reply in writing to the Engineering faculty’s response. Vice Provost Sulllivan responded that he will be happy to do that.

Another senator agreed with the need to bolster the OTL, but disagreed with the proposed charge of 15% OTL fee before expenses, which has the potential of significantly diminishing the actual share of the inventors. Vice Provost Sullivan responded that others have made similar comments and that he agreed to change that. He further noted that other changes will also be made to this draft. The same senator expressed further concern that the share going to the Departments and Schools would be appropriate only if it is used for the inventors’ research. He also disagreed with how the policy handles the issue of courseware, saying that these involve the same type of scholarly activities as the writing of a book, yet they are treated quite differently, by USC claiming IP ownership.

A senator from the Medical Faculty Association said that rather than simply express his concerns on the proposed IP policy, he offered an edited alternative of the November 11 draft, that was distributed to the senators distributed to the senators (http://www.usc.edu/schools/medicine/faculty/mfa/IntellectProperty/IP-01-hrk.pdf). He then highlighted some of the proposed changes. After asking his colleagues who would know best how to spend IP income, he concluded that no one knows. Therefore, he said that he does not see a reason to change the current royalty distribution formula of 50% to USC and 50% to the inventors. He also noted that if the inventor’s share is lowered significantly, this may lead to a "black market" for inventions.

Another senator pointed out that the most interesting issue regarding IP, is what would be the best atmosphere for faculty to develop IP and help support, recruit and retain the best faculty. The senator also expressed some concerns regarding too much emphasis on what is arguably "greed" and not on academic issues, such as the development of course materials and distance learning. She also suggested that the new IP policy should be more flexible regarding courseware and the use of internet resources. In order to settle these IP issues, she recommended that a special Task Force be appointed.

A Senator from Engineering commented further on the Engineering faculty’s response. Noting that he is also an inventor, he observed that there is nothing wrong with "greed". He said that the written response of the Engineering faculty council received a rare unanimous endorsement by all of the members. He suggested that a significant change in the current IP policy may constitute a breach of contract, since some faculty may have chosen to come to USC with consideration of its IP policy. He also agreed that a reduced incentive for inventors will create a "black market" and that it will also make it more difficult to attract the best faculty. He observed that USC’s problem is not with the IP production side but on the IP distribution side. He questioned the suggestion that most other universities have a less generous royalty share than USC, mentioning that a number of them also offer 50% to inventors. He recommended that the patent issues should be separated from the issues of distance learning, saying that the increasingly common web editions of books should not be treated differently than print editions. He then endorsed the proposal of Nicos Petasis on how to finalize the IP policy.

Vice Provost Sullivan observed that the faculty will still have the freedom to publish and share their discoveries. However, many faculty do not realize that through their scholarly activities they create IP and that in many cases their IP has value beyond the scholarly contributions and that they may benefit from that value if it is properly protected. He also noted that the 50% share for inventors offered by USC is an exception and that few Universities, if any, in the top 20 institutions have similar policies.

At this point President Tierney suggested that there is much more to say regarding the IP policy. Since the Research Committee did not make a recommendation, he wondered what would be the best course of action for the Senate. Among the offered choices would be to reject or delay this, or to only endorse the parts that we agree on. He agreed, however that it would be most helpful if the Academic Senate try to improve the current policy with a new group of faculty designated by the Senate. He suggested that this group should include Nicos Petasis from the Executive Board and one faculty member recommended by the Medical (MFA) and Engineering (EFC) councils. Senator Kosko, as vice chair of the EFC, was nominated to serve on this new Task Force on Intellectual Property policy. The President of the MFA said they would forward a representative to the committee within a week. It was agreed that this Task Force should report to the Senate at the April meeting for a final consideration of the IP policy.

Agenda Item #5: Discussion of: Sabbatical Reform/Interdisciplinary Initiative

President Tierney introduced this issue by referring to two recent white papers of the senate on sabbatical reform (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/SabbaticalReformPage.html) and on interdisciplinary research and teaching (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/InterdisciplinaryRep.html). He then introduced senator Hilary Schor, a member of the Senate Executive Board who was also involved with the white paper and is the chair of a joint Provost / Senate Task Force on interdisciplinary work. In a written outline (http://www.usc.edu/academe/acsen/SabbaticalReformPage.html) she described the work and recommendation of the Task Force. She pointed out that it is often difficult for the faculty to work across different Departments and disciplines and that such efforts are often not properly appreciated. The Task Force made three specific recommendations that would improve the climate for interdisciplinary research and teaching at USC: (1) establish a joint Provost / Senate committee to advise the Provost on new interdisciplinary activities and programs, (2) allocate funds to be awarded by the above committee in support of interdisciplinary activities, and (3) create a new center on campus that will bring together faculty from across the university to work on interdisciplinary themes.

In response to these recommendations, a senator expressed some concerns about the need for creating new formal bodies to deal with these matters. He pointed out that interested faculty can find out what’s going on elsewhere in the university and that any new entities may take up valuable resources. He agreed, however, that some problems exist when faculty try to teach outside their Department. Another senator suggested that individual faculty may best suited to decide what would be the best approach in each case. Several other senators expressed support for these proposals and agreed that there are a number of obstacles as faculty try to pursue interdisciplinary activities.

President Tierney said that the Provost has been involved in this issue and there may be also a role for the senate in determining what activities should be supported.

Agenda Item #5: Committee on Committees

President Tierney presented the following charges to the proposed Senate "Committee on Committees" as an addition to the Senate standing committees:

Academic Senate

Committee on Committees

2000-2001

Charges:

A Committee on Committees will be appointed by the Academic Senate President and Executive Board to nominate faculty for membership on Senate Committees, and Committees appointed jointly by the Senate and the Provost.

The Committee on Committees shall be chaired by the Administrative Vice President and consist of at least five and no more than nine members. At least two of the members shall be members of the Academic Senate and at least two of the members shall be appointed from the faculty at large. In appointing the committee, every effort should be made to obtain members from a variety of schools (units).

Members shall serve a one-year term and may be re-appointed at the discretion of the Executive Board.

The Committee on Committees for the current academic year shall, in normal circumstances, makes recommendations to the Executive Committee. In turn, the Executive Committee will select faculty to fill Committee memberships for the following academic year. When the need arises, the Committee on Committee shall recommend faculty for the current academic year as well.

The resolution was passed unanimously with the following amendment: the title was changed to "Selection Committee."

The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

_______________

Respectfully Submitted,

Nicos A. Petasis
Professor of Chemistry
Secretary General of the Academic Senate